Estate of Rebecca A. Wineman - Page 57




                                       - 57 -                                         

          section 2032A(e)(8).  Respondent ignored the automatic election             
          provision in section 20.2032A-4(b)(2)(i), Estate Tax Regs., and             
          never notified petitioner of any defects in its special use                 
          valuation election under section 2032A(e)(8).  Respondent’s                 
          determination in the notice of deficiency was that petitioner               
          failed to make an effective and timely election under the                   
          provisions of section 2032A.  That rationale was based on                   
          petitioner’s failure properly to document comparable properties             
          meeting the requirements of section 2032A(e)(7) and the                     
          regulations thereunder.  The failure to document rentals of                 
          comparable properties meeting the requirements of section                   
          20.2032A-4, Estate Tax Regs., precludes valuing the properties              
          under section 2032A(e)(7).  As discussed above, however, that               
          failure does not make an otherwise valid election under section             
          2032A(e)(8) ineffective.  See sec. 20.2032A-4(b)(2)(i), Estate              
          Tax Regs.; see also Estate of Hughan v. Commissioner, supra.                
               Having failed to persuade us that petitioner made no                   
          election under section 2032A(e)(8), respondent now seeks to                 
          invalidate the election by pointing out that petitioner did not             
          introduce evidence on all the required factors set forth in                 
          section 2032A(e)(8).  We do not agree with this criticism of                
          petitioner’s election.                                                      
               Respondent’s principal arguments before the submission of              
          his posttrial briefs were threefold:                                        





Page:  Previous  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011